Semiclassical energies

As the starting point in the discusion, we consider a simplified version of the diagram of a tunneling center s energy states from Fig. 14 with e < 0, as shown on the left hand side of Fig. 21. We remind the reader that the e < 0 situation, explicitly depicted in Fig. 21, implies lower transition energies than when the semiclassical energy difference e > 0 and thus dominates the low-temperature onset of the boson peak and the plateau. 

C. Jaffe and W. P. Reinhardt, Time-independent methods in classical mechanics Calculation of invariant tori and semiclassical energy levels V ia classical Van Vleck transformations, J. Chem. Phys. 71 1862 (1979). 

Figure Al.2.7. Trajectory of two coupled stretches, obtained by integrating Hamilton s equations for motion on a PES for the two modes. The system has stable anhamionic synmretric and antisyimnetric stretch modes, like those illustrated in figrne Al.2.6. In this trajectory, semiclassically there is one quantum of energy in each mode, so the trajectory corresponds to a combination state with quantum numbers nj = [1, 1]. The woven pattern shows that the trajectory is regular rather than chaotic, corresponding to motion in phase space on an invariant torus.

To calculate N (E-Eq), the non-torsional transitional modes have been treated as vibrations as well as rotations [26]. The fomier approach is invalid when the transitional mode s barrier for rotation is low, while the latter is inappropriate when the transitional mode is a vibration. Hamionic frequencies for the transitional modes may be obtained from a semi-empirical model [23] or by perfomiing an appropriate nomial mode analysis as a fiinction of the reaction path for the reaction s potential energy surface [26]. Semiclassical quantization may be used to detemiine anliamionic energy levels for die transitional modes [27]. 

Shirts R B and Reinhardt W P 1982 Approximate constants of motion for classically chaotic vibrational dynamics vague tori, semiclassical quantization, and classical intramolecular energy flow J. Cham. Phys. 77 5204-17... 

Figure B2.2.3. Vibrational relaxation cross sections (quantal and semiclassical) as a fiinction of collision energy E.

Jackson B 1994 Quantum and semiclassical calculations of gas surface energy transfer and sticking Comput. Rhys. Commun. 80 119... 

The fonn of the classical (equation C3.2.11) or semiclassical (equation C3.2.11) rate equations are energy gap laws . That is, the equations reflect a free energy dependent rate. In contrast with many physical organic reactivity indices, these rates are predicted to increase as -AG grows, and then to drop when -AG exceeds a critical value. In the classical limit, log(/cg.j.) has a parabolic dependence on -AG. Wlren high-frequency chemical bond vibrations couple to the ET process, the dependence on -AG becomes asymmetrical, as mentioned above. 

With tlie development of femtosecond laser teclmology it has become possible to observe in resonance energy transfer some apparent manifestations of tire coupling between nuclear and electronic motions. For example in photosyntlietic preparations such as light-harvesting antennae and reaction centres [32, 46, 47 and 49] such observations are believed to result eitlier from oscillations between tire coupled excitonic levels of dimers (generally multimers), or tire nuclear motions of tire cliromophores. This is a subject tliat is still very much open to debate, and for extensive discussion we refer tire reader for example to [46, 47, 50, 51 and 55]. A simplified view of tire subject can nonetlieless be obtained from tire following semiclassical picture. 

Both the BO dynamics and Gaussian wavepacket methods described above in Section n separate the nuclear and electronic motion at the outset, and use the concept of potential energy surfaces. In what is generally known as the Ehrenfest dynamics method, the picture is still of semiclassical nuclei and quantum mechanical electrons, but in a fundamentally different approach the electronic wave function is propagated at the same time as the pseudoparticles. These are driven by standard classical equations of motion, with the force provided by an instantaneous potential energy function... 

The present paper is organized as follows In a first step, the derivation of QCMD and related models is reviewed in the framework of the semiclassical approach, 2. This approach, however, does not reveal the close connection between the QCMD and BO models. For establishing this connection, the BO model is shown to be the adiabatic limit of both, QD and QCMD, 3. Since the BO model is well-known to fail at energy level crossings, we have to discuss the influence of such crossings on QCMD-like models, too. This is done by the means of a relatively simple test system for a specific type of such a crossing where non-adiabatic excitations take place, 4. Here, all models so far discussed fail. Finally, we suggest a modification of the QCMD system to overcome this failure. 

Fig. 2. The BO model is the adiabatic limit of full QD if energy level crossings do not appear. QCMD is connected to QD by the semiclassical approach if no caustics are present. Its adiabatic limit is again the BO solution, this time if the Hamiltonian H is smoothly diagonalizable. Thus, QCMD may be justified indirectly by the adiabatic limit excluding energy level crossings and other discontinuities of the spectral decomposition.

Molecular mechanics methods are not generally applicable to structures very far from equilibrium, such as transition structures. Calculations that use algebraic expressions to describe the reaction path and transition structure are usually semiclassical algorithms. These calculations use an energy expression fitted to an ah initio potential energy surface for that exact reaction, rather than using the same parameters for every molecule. Semiclassical calculations are discussed further in Chapter 19. 

This formula resembles (3.32) and, as we shall show in due course, this similarity is not accidental. Note that at n = 0 the short action 1 2 ( q) taken at the ground state energy Eq is not equal to the kink action (3.68). Since in the harmonic approximation for the well Tq = 2n/o)o, this difference should be compensated by the prefactor in (3.74), but, generally speaking, expressions (3.74) and (3.79) are not identical because eq. (3.79) uses the semiclassical approximation for the ground state, while (3.74) does not. 

---